IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consequences of differences in cost-benefit methodology in railway infrastructure appraisal—A comparison between selected countries


  • Olsson, Nils O.E.
  • Økland, Andreas
  • Halvorsen, Siri B.


This paper presents the cost-benefit methodology used in the appraisal of railway infrastructure in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the UK, France, Germany and Switzerland. The consequences of differences in methodology are illustrated by a case-study undertaken with the methodology from each of the seven countries. Differences in methodology means that results from the analyses are far from similar. The case project has a positive net present value based on Swiss and British methodology, but negative net present value using methodology from any of the other five countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Olsson, Nils O.E. & Økland, Andreas & Halvorsen, Siri B., 2012. "Consequences of differences in cost-benefit methodology in railway infrastructure appraisal—A comparison between selected countries," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 29-35.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:22:y:2012:i:c:p:29-35
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.03.005

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Lyons, Glenn & Jain, Juliet & Holley, David, 2007. "The use of travel time by rail passengers in Great Britain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 107-120, January.
    2. Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Salomon, Ilan, 2001. "How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 695-719, September.
    3. Kaufmann, Vincent & Jemelin, Christophe & Pflieger, Géraldine & Pattaroni, Luca, 2008. "Socio-political analysis of French transport policies: The state of the practices," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 12-22, January.
    4. Hayashi, Y. & Morisugi, H., 2000. "International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 73-88, January.
    5. Nakamura, H., 2000. "The economic evaluation of transport infrastructure: needs for international comparisons," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 3-6, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Grimaldi, Raffaele & Beria, Paolo, 2013. "Open issues in the practice of cost benefit analysis of transport projects," MPRA Paper 53766, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Carl Koopmans & Piet Rietveld, 2013. "Long-term impacts of mega-projects: the discount rate," Chapters,in: International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 14, pages 313-332 Edward Elgar Publishing.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:22:y:2012:i:c:p:29-35. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.